The new photographic evidence to hand proves Martin Bryant
is innocent and increases the demand for a properly constituted Royal
FOR YOUR OWN A4 PHOTOGRAPHIC COLLAGE
The fresh evidence coming to light in these photographs prove beyond
doubt that the evidence submitted by the Tasmanian Police to support
the conviction of Martin Bryant on the charges of murder at the Broad
Arrow Cafe was false, and in fact prove Martin Bryant could not have
been the blonde man in their photographic evidence.
The police evidence is so blatantly incorrect that, as a result of my
investigations and with copies of these photos, I have sent the letter
below to the Commissioner of the Tasmanian Police Service.
22nd September 1998
Commissioner Tasmanian Police Service
GPO Box 308C
Hobart, Tasmania 7001
Dear Mr McCreadie,
PORT ARTHUR MASS MURDER 28 APRIL 1998 -- FRESH EVIDENCE
During the last year I have examined the evidence in the case of The
Queen v. Martin Bryant, and am writing to advise you that irrefutable
hard scientific evidence exists proving that Bryant was not the famous
'blonde man' on the video footage tendered to the Supreme Court by the
Tasmanian Police Service. Obviously the true identity of the blonde man
must now be swiftly established, following which he must either be
charged with 36 counts of murder, or conspiracy to pervert the course
of justice, or perhaps both.
You may find this scientific evidence difficult to believe after the
hysterical media conviction of Martin Bryant in 1996, but the Port
Arthur case is no more extraordinary than that of British policewoman
Fletcher, which I investigated for four years starting in 1992. WPC
Yvonne Fletcher was murdered outside the Libyan Embassy in London on
the 17th April 1984, and for twelve years 80 million Britons sincerely
believed the media myth that Fletcher was killed by a single shot fired
by a "Libyan Assassin" located within the Embassy itself.
The hard scientific evidence proved otherwise. WPC Fletcher was killed
by a shot fired from an American multinational building located further
to the west, and her case is now the subject of an official review by
the Metropolitan Police Service. That review is based on fresh
scientific evidence uncovered by my independent investigation.
The attached photographic evidence shows a blonde man standing by a
yellow car in the bus park at Port Arthur, allegedly Bryant changing
weapons after killing twenty civilians in the Broad Arrow Cafe, and two
more in the vicinity of the Trans Otway bus. Immediately beyond the
blonde man is a large white boat, but as the two photographs on the
right prove scientifically, the white boat was not anchored or moored
in or near that position at any time on the afternoon of 28th April. In
turn this proves in irrefutable scientific terms that the amateur video
of the blonde man could not possibly have been filmed on the same
afternoon as the crime, but on another date entirely, most probably the
27th or 29th April. It matters not if a dozen boat owners now come
forward and swear their boats were present on that particular mooring
at Port Arthur on the afternoon of 28th April 1996, hard science will
prove every one of them a liar.
Because it is a matter of documented record that Martin Bryant was in
Richmond with girlfriend Petra Wilmott on the 27th, and in Hobart
Hospital with third-degree burns on the 29th, it is proven in
irrefutable terms that he (Bryant) cannot be the blonde man standing by
the yellow car with a surfboard on its roof rack. Also, as the car the
unidentified blonde man is standing next to was verified by your
officers as having been driven by the murderer, Martin Bryant clearly
cannot be the guilty party. Having monitored the recent media
performance of some of your commissioned officers, it seems possible
that you might also be tempted to deflect attention away from this
seminal scientific evidence by use of misleading references to
"hundreds of eyewitnesses", "forensic evidence linking Bryant to Port
Arthur", and last but not least Martin Bryant's "confession". In my
view any such move would be a significant error.
It is already public knowledge that the Tasmanian Police Service does
not have a single valid positive identification of Bryant at the Port
Arthur historic site provided by a witness in a manner required by low
i.e. from a line-up or from a Rogues Gallery of photographs. It is also
known there is no fingerprint or DNA evidence available which links
Bryant directly to the Port Arthur site, or to either of the two
weapons alleged to have been used in the mass murder. The motor vehicle
and sports bag owned by Bryant and allegedly found at or near the crime
scenes are not valid evidence because both are highly portable items
which were not in Bryant's possession when arrested. Both items may
well have been stolen for the express purpose of incriminating him.
This is not a new technique, but one that has been used around the
world on hundreds of occasions.
Where Bryant himself is concerned, there seems little doubt we are
looking at the most gross abuse of human rights in recent Australian
history. After this intellectually-impaired young man pleaded 'not
guilty' in the Royal Hobart Hospital to the initial holding charge of
one murder, he was denied remand prisoner rights and effectively held
in solitary confinement without access to media reportage until his
police interrogation on 4th July 1996. Despite his intellectual
impairment, Bryant was not provided with independent advice by the
Office of Public Guardians, but was left alone to defend himself
against a team of highly trained experts including your own
interrogators. Worse, Bryant's designated "defence" lawyer was denied
access to his client during the interrogation. Although Martin Bryant
managed to plead not guilty for months on end, it is not hard to
comprehend the confusion and fear he must have felt because of these
cruel and inhumane practices.
At no time has Bryant confessed to the crimes at Port Arthur, which is
not surprising bearing in mind the irrefutable fresh scientific
evidence which proves he was not the blonde man on the video tendered
to the Supreme Court. No man can provide a detailed confession about a
series of crimes in which he played no active part. The fact that
Bryant eventually said "guilty" seventy two times at the pre-sentencing
hearing on 6th November 1996 has no real meaning, because we have no
way of knowing his state of mind after being so cruelly treated for a
period of 192 days. What we do know with certainty is that after being
similarly harassed and abused in England, the Birmingham Six and the
Guildford Four were eventually freed on appeal.
As Commissioner, I believe it is now your duty to open an investigation
with the express objectives of identifying, arresting and charging the
unknown blonde man on the amateur video footage. Indeed, the future
credibility of the Tasmanian Police Service may depend on your prompt
action in this matter.
Deception at Port Arthur"
A limited number of A4 copies of this composite photographic evidence
are available at cost, each custom-printed at high resolution in full
photo colour on high gloss paper. Price includes stiff packaging and
express mail costs anywhere on the Australian continent.
Send $15.00 to:
45 Merlin Drive
Western Australia 6020
Any extra funds derived from the sale of these composites will be
ploughed straight back into the ongoing expense of the Port Arthur
investigation i.e. stationary, postage, computer disposables and so on.
REMEMBER TO INCLUDE YOUR NAME & ADDRESS